Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, J.
The Executive Engineer Work Division-II P.W.D., Panaji-Goa - Appellant
Versus
Shri Pedro Paulo Roque Fernandes (deceased) and ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 41 of 2013
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate
Headnote:
Goa Land Use Act, 1991 - Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Section 4 - Land - Land Acquisition Officer - Market Rate - Respondents' land admeasuring 810sq.mts of Village was acquired for construction - Land Acquisition Officer, by Award determined market rate and Reference Court by impugned Judgment and Award has enhanced this rate– Held, According to Court, even if factors like increased yield, severance, or proximity to capital city are cumulatively taken into account, market rate cannot exceed Rs.325/-per square meter - This means that addition to basic rate of Rs.234/-per square meter will have to be commensurate to overall market rate of Rs.325/-per square meter - Travel time, as well as transport facilities for transportation of agricultural yield, will be much lesser as compared to agricultural properties which are at some distance from city limits - Again, in this case, there is some issue of severance involved because acquisition was of 810 sq.mts and entire property of respondent was about 5000 sq.mts - On account of acquisition and consequent bypass, entire property has been affected to some extent - Therefore, some increase is necessary on this account as well - Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all aforesaid circumstances, this is a matter where market value will have to be determined at Rs.325/-and not Rs.500/- per square meter - There is no case made out to interfere with statutory benefits awarded by Reference Court - Compensation amount is reduced from Rs.500/-to Rs.325/-per square meter - Statutory benefits granted by Reference Court proportionate to rate now determined are not disturbed – Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant State, and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the respondents.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30.06.2012 made by the District Court (Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No.6 of 2009 enhancing the compensation in respect of acquired land from Rs.150/-per square meter to Rs.500/- per square meter.
3. In this case, the respondents' land admeasuring 810sq.mts from Survey No.25/3 of Village Renovadi, Merces was acquired for construction of Ribandar bye-pass from Kms 143.500 to 153.200 on NH-4A. The Land Acquisition Officer, by Award dated 16.02.2008 determined the market rate at Rs.150/-per square meter, and the Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.06.2012 has enhanced this rate to Rs.500/- per square meter.
4. Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the acquired land was admittedly affected by the provisions of the Goa Land Use Act, 1991, since, the claimant had purchased the same under the provisions of Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. She submits that the acquired land, therefore, had no building potential and could not have been used for any purpose other than agriculture. She submits that this factual aspect has been not taken into consideration by the Reference Court. She further submits that the Reference Court has gone by the Gazette Notification dated 19.06.2003 which determines the prevailing market value for purpose of payment of stamp duty. She submits that such Notification was quite irrelevant in the context of determination of market value in land acquisition cases. She relied on The U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr., v/s. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1996 SCC 1170 in support of this contention. She also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakur Kuldeep Singh v/s. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 1272
5. Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent-claimant defends the impugned Judgment and Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that Valuation Reports were submitted in this matter. He points out that though the land may be agricultural, it is close to the capital city as also NH-17. He points out that there was an issue of severance in this case and on account of the acquisition, the rights of the respondents to utilize the un-acquired portion of their land were also severely affected. He, therefore, submits that the compensation determined by the Reference Court is fair and proper and the same may not be interfered with.
6. Rival contentions now fall for my determination.
7. In this case there is no dispute that the acquired land was not only agricultural land, but further was initially vested and thereafter purchased by the respondent-claimant under the provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. The Goa Land Use Act 1991 provides that any land which is vested in a tenant cannot be utilized by such tenant for purposes other than agriculture. This will apply also to the vested lands once they are purchased by the tenants under the provision of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. Therefore, Ms. Linhares is quite right in her submissions that the compensation will have to be determined based on its agricultural potential and without adverting to any building or development potential.
8. The Reference Court has referred to Exhibit-16 which is an Award in respect of comparable and nearby lands in which compensation in the year 1994 was already determined. Such determination was on the basis that even such lands were agricultural properties. The Reference Court has thereafter accepted the formula of 10% escalation per annum and based thereon determined the market rate at Rs.234/-per square meter on the date of issuance of Section 4 Notification.
9. The Reference Court was quite justified in
